Then why did the democrats not impeach him based on the Mueller Report?
Hillary Clinton hired Christopher Steele to do oppo research against Trump, this became known as the Steele Dossier and contained a number of accusations on Trump. After the election the FBI started a serious investigation on if these accusations were true, and after two years the Mueller Report concluded that none of the serious allegations against Trump could be verified. This is why the Democrats (who had a majority in the house at that time) decided not to impeach, there was nothing there.
Russia did try to influence the election, but this does not mean Trump was complicit, and no proof of this was found.
The Muller Report explicitly asked Congress to investigate further. Muller stated that Justice Department policy tied his hands to look any further into a sitting President.
Barr then gets ahead of it saying “this is a nothingburger”. That becomes the media narrative before anyone outside the Justice Department can actually read it. One which you’re now repeating. Impeachment isn’t like a court case; it is primarily a political process. Barr knew this, and to this day, Trump had no clue how much Barr saved his ass.
Read the Muller Report, not the headlines. It is a damning document.
Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 173: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
What Bar said is irrelevant, I’m basing my statements on the Mueller report.
Nope, you’re cherry picking. Muller didn’t establish that because he didn’t wasn’t allowed to go further. Here’s the complete paragraph of that very quote:
"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities. "
So even if there was no direct collusion, there sure as hell was a deliberate campaign by Russia to support Trump. The only thing Muller was blocked from establishing was if the Trump Campaign was talking to the Russians directly, or if Russia merely saw a Trump Presidency as being in their interests and worked on their own. Again, Muller was not allowed to follow up any deeper than he did.
There was no collusion, no evidence has been found since then, even with a democratic trifecta after 2020. Trump did try to pressure Ukraine in an effort to meddle in the 2020 election, Trump did incite an insurrection on January 6, Trump did try to overturn the 2020 election. But thus far there is simply no evidence of collusion in the 2016 campaign, even after a two year inquiry.
And I did not cherry pick, I quoted the relevant information, namely the conclusion.
Those are just the facts, no comment here has refuted this thus far by providing any evidence of collusion.
The only thing that happened is that my original comment has been removed for spreading misinformation, which I find frankly stunning.
The wording of the Mueller report wasn’t a slam dunk for Democrats to impeach with. There was no smoking gun, just that in all likelihood, Trump colluded with Russian agents in undermining the election. His children met directly with Russians to discuss manipulating voters, but Trump is Teflon Don and apparently was never in any of those meetings. We all believe him of course.
Then why did the democrats not impeach him based on the Mueller Report?
Hillary Clinton hired Christopher Steele to do oppo research against Trump, this became known as the Steele Dossier and contained a number of accusations on Trump. After the election the FBI started a serious investigation on if these accusations were true, and after two years the Mueller Report concluded that none of the serious allegations against Trump could be verified. This is why the Democrats (who had a majority in the house at that time) decided not to impeach, there was nothing there.
Russia did try to influence the election, but this does not mean Trump was complicit, and no proof of this was found.
“Then why did the democrats not impeach him based on the Mueller Report?”
They did. Where have you been.
They did not, they impeached him twice: once on Ukraine and once on jan 6. Never on Russia; never on the Mueller report.
The Muller Report explicitly asked Congress to investigate further. Muller stated that Justice Department policy tied his hands to look any further into a sitting President.
Barr then gets ahead of it saying “this is a nothingburger”. That becomes the media narrative before anyone outside the Justice Department can actually read it. One which you’re now repeating. Impeachment isn’t like a court case; it is primarily a political process. Barr knew this, and to this day, Trump had no clue how much Barr saved his ass.
Read the Muller Report, not the headlines. It is a damning document.
Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 173: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
What Bar said is irrelevant, I’m basing my statements on the Mueller report.
Nope, you’re cherry picking. Muller didn’t establish that because he didn’t wasn’t allowed to go further. Here’s the complete paragraph of that very quote:
"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. "
So even if there was no direct collusion, there sure as hell was a deliberate campaign by Russia to support Trump. The only thing Muller was blocked from establishing was if the Trump Campaign was talking to the Russians directly, or if Russia merely saw a Trump Presidency as being in their interests and worked on their own. Again, Muller was not allowed to follow up any deeper than he did.
There was no collusion, no evidence has been found since then, even with a democratic trifecta after 2020. Trump did try to pressure Ukraine in an effort to meddle in the 2020 election, Trump did incite an insurrection on January 6, Trump did try to overturn the 2020 election. But thus far there is simply no evidence of collusion in the 2016 campaign, even after a two year inquiry.
And I did not cherry pick, I quoted the relevant information, namely the conclusion.
Those are just the facts, no comment here has refuted this thus far by providing any evidence of collusion.
The only thing that happened is that my original comment has been removed for spreading misinformation, which I find frankly stunning.
You can’t impeach someone who isn’t in office
The wording of the Mueller report wasn’t a slam dunk for Democrats to impeach with. There was no smoking gun, just that in all likelihood, Trump colluded with Russian agents in undermining the election. His children met directly with Russians to discuss manipulating voters, but Trump is Teflon Don and apparently was never in any of those meetings. We all believe him of course.